Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Lett

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Lett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. None of the sources listed are significant coverage of Lett herself and are namedrops at best. shoy (reactions) 17:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator that there's no significant coverage of Lett herself. A handful of times, quotes from her are used in article about etiquette as she appears to be a frequent "go-to" for questions like that, but I don't believe that qualifies her under WP:NAUTHOR. There's certainly no coverage of her as the subject of an article in any reliable sources. The barrage of citations are filled with primary sources, links to Amazon pages hawking her books, and the like. ArchieOof (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a ref check: very few RSes, most sources primary or user-generated, many unreliable sources, almost all biographical details completely unsourced - by WP:BLP, this should be culled to a stub ASAP. I wonder if we could get her to write some civility or etiquette guidance on promotional editing of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is clearly only existing for PR the fact it's going to specifications for her career and clientele-laced information, none of it is actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly a vanity page with no substance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.